Draft 2008 California 303(d)/305(b) Integrated Report

Supporting Information

Regional Board 2 - San Francisco Bay Region

Water Body Name: Arroyo Mocho
Water Body ID: CAR2043008020010905115519
Water Body Type: River & Stream
 
DECISION ID
17456
 
Pollutant: Arsenic | Chromium (total) | Copper | Lead | Nickel | Silver | Zinc
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: New Decision
Revision Status Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Weight of Evidence: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.

Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. None of the three samples exceeded the water quality objectives (Basin Plan) and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, Water Board staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
 
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
 
USEPA Decision:
 
 
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 17456
 
LOE ID: 28841
 
Pollutant: Arsenic | Chromium (total) | Copper | Lead | Nickel | Silver | Zinc
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: Dissolved
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 3
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: The Arroyo Mocho watershed was monitored as part of SWAMP assessment. None of the three samples exceeded the water quality objectives for arsenic, chromium VI, copper, lead, nickel, silver and zinc.
Concentrations of total dissolved chromium were well below the objective for chromium VI.
Data Reference: Data collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. Years 4 and 5 Assessment
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms.
Table 3-4 in the Basin Plan (2007) lists freshwater water quality objectives for toxic pollutants: arsenic- 150 ug/L, chromium VI- 11 ug/L, copper - 9.0 ug/L, lead - 2.5 ug/L; nickel - 52 ug/L, silver-3.4 ug/L and zinc - 120 ug/L.
Objective/Criterion Reference: San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan)
 
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
 
Spatial Representation: Data were collected at one sampling location (AMO070) in the Arroyo Mocho watershed (above Vulcan Bridge Zone 7).
Temporal Representation: Samples were collected during wet (January), spring (April), and dry( June) seasons of 2005.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information: All samples were collected and analyzed using procedures comparable with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (SWRCB, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
 
DECISION ID
17461
 
Pollutant: Chlorpyrifos | Dacthal | Diazinon | Disulfoton | Endosulfan | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Methyl Parathion | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Thiobencarb/Bolero
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: New Decision
Revision Status Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Weight of Evidence: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One line of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.

Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. None of three samples exceeded the water quality objectives (Basin Plan, Central Valley Regional Board Basin Plan and The US EPA 1987 guidelines and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, Water Board staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
 
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
 
USEPA Decision:
 
 
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 17461
 
LOE ID: 28961
 
Pollutant: Chlorpyrifos | Dacthal | Diazinon | Disulfoton | Endosulfan | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Methyl Parathion | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Thiobencarb/Bolero
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 3
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: The Arroyo Mocho watershed was monitored as part of SWAMP assessment. None of the three samples exceeded the water quality objectives for PCBs, Chlorpyrifos, Dacthal, diazinon, disulfoton, endosulfan, Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH), methyl parathion, thiobencarb.
Data Reference: Data collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. Years 4 and 5 Assessment
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms.
There shall be no chronic toxicity in ambient waters. Chronic toxicity is a detrimental biological effect on growth rate, reproduction, fertilization success, larval development, population abundance, community composition, or any other relevant measure of the health of an organism, population, or community.
Diazinon water quality objective, 0.1 ug/L (acute)
Objective/Criterion Reference: San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan)
 
Evaluation Guideline: PCBs - 0.014 ug/L freshwater continuous Concentration; Chlorpyrifos - 0.015 ug/L (chronic); Dacthal (DCPA) - 14300 ug/L (acute); Disulfoton (Disyston) - 0.05 ug/L (acute); Endosulfan - 0.056 ug/L (chronic)/0.22 ug/L (acute); HCH, gamma-(gamma BHC, Lindane) - 0.95 ug/L (acute); methyl parathion - 0.08 ug/L (acute); Thiobencarb - 3.1 ug/L (acute).
Guideline Reference: National recommended water quality criteria: 2002. EPA-822-R-02-047 Washington, D.C. USEPA
 
Spatial Representation: Data were collected at one sampling location (AMO070) in the Arroyo Mocho watershed.
Temporal Representation: Samples were collected during wet (January), spring (April), and dry( June) seasons of 2005.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information: All samples were collected and analyzed using procedures comparable with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (SWRCB, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
 
DECISION ID
16830
 
Pollutant: Oxygen, Dissolved
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: New Decision
Revision Status Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Weight of Evidence: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.

Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Four of 12 samples for COLD beneficial use, and 3 of 12 samples exceeded the Basin Plan water quality objective. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, Water Board staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
 
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
 
USEPA Decision:
 
 
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 16830
 
LOE ID: 28624
 
Pollutant: Oxygen, Dissolved
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Cold Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 12
Number of Exceedances: 4
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Comprehensive water quality assessment was conducted at Arroyo Mocho watershed as part of SWAMP assessment in 2004 and 2005. Continuous field monitoring of temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and specific conductance to determine temporal variability in basic water quality at one or two locations. The 7 day average minimum concentration of dissolved oxygen ranged from 0.2 to 10.5 mg/L and varied with season. Minimum dissolved oxygen levels fell below the objective of 7 mg/L at three locations in spring (April 2004) and one in the summer (August 2003) sampling events. The 7 day average concentration levels were 6.5, 3.7, 0.7 (all spring) and 0.2 (summer) mg/L DO.
Data Reference: Data collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. Years 4 and 5 Assessment
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: The numeric water quality objective for dissolved oxygen is 7.0 mg/L minimum for waters designated as cold water habitat. The median dissolved oxygen concentration for any three consecutive months shall not be less than 80 percent of the dissolved oxygen content at saturation.
Objective/Criterion Reference: San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan)
 
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
 
Spatial Representation: Dissolved oxygen was measured at two or five sites located on the mainstem of San Mateo Creek that are representative of the entire creek length.
Temporal Representation: At all locations the SWAMP performed continuous monitoring of dissolved oxygen at 15 minute intervals lasting 7-13 days during spring (April 2004), summer dry season (August 2004), and winter wet season (February 2004).
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information: All samples were collected and analyzed using procedures comparable with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (SWRCB 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):
 
LOE ID: 28625
 
Pollutant: Oxygen, Dissolved
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 12
Number of Exceedances: 3
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Comprehensive water quality assessment was conducted at Arroyo Mocho watershed as part of SWAMP assessment in 2004 and 2005. Continuous field monitoring of temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and specific conductance to determine temporal variability in basic water quality at one or two locations. The 7 day average minimum concentration of dissolved oxygen ranged from 0.2 to 10.5 mg/L and varied with season. Minimum dissolved oxygen levels fell below the objective of 5 mg/L at two locations in spring (April 2004) and one in the summer (August 2004) sampling events. The 7 day average concentration levels were 3.7, 0.7 (all spring) and 0.2 (summer) mg/L DO.
Data Reference: Data collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. Years 4 and 5 Assessment
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: The numeric water quality objective for dissolved oxygen is 5.0 mg/L minimum for waters designated as warm water habitat. The median dissolved oxygen concentration for any three consecutive months shall not be less than 80 percent of the dissolved oxygen content at saturation.
Objective/Criterion Reference: San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan)
 
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
 
Spatial Representation: Dissolved oxygen was measured at two sites in summer 2004 and five sites in spring 2004 and winter 2005.
Temporal Representation: At all locations the SWAMP performed continuous monitoring of dissolved oxygen at 15 minute intervals lasting 7-13 days during spring (April 2004), summer dry season (August 2004), and winter wet season (February 2005).
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information: All samples were collected and analyzed using procedures comparable with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (SWRCB 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):
 
DECISION ID
17457
 
Pollutant: Toxicity
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: New Decision
Revision Status Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Weight of Evidence: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective.

Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. One of the three samples exceeded the water quality objective (Basin Plan) and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, Water Board staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
 
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
 
USEPA Decision:
 
 
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 17457
 
LOE ID: 28994
 
Pollutant: Toxicity
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Cold Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 3
Number of Exceedances: 1
 
Data and Information Type: TOXICITY TESTING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Three samples were collected in 2005 to evaluate water toxicity at two monitoring locations in Arroyo Mocho watershed. The toxicity tests included survival and reproduction of Ceriodaphnia, survival and growth of fathead minnow, and growth of Selenastrum. Ceriodaphnia growth was significantly lower than the control in one of three samples (dry season sample). Growth was 69.4 percent of the control for this sample.
Data Reference: Data collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. Years 4 and 5 Assessment
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms.
There shall be no chronic toxicity in ambient waters. Chronic toxicity is a detrimental biological effect on growth rate, reproduction, fertilization success, larval development, population abundance, community composition, or any other relevant measure of the health of an organism, population, or community.
Objective/Criterion Reference: San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan)
 
Evaluation Guideline: Water toxicity was evaluated according to the SWAMP methodology. The U.S.EPA whole effluent toxicity protocol (U.S.EPA 1994) was used to test the effect of water samples on three freshwater test organisms. Statistical evaluation (alpha = 0.05) and a default threshold of 80% of the control value were used to establish whether water exhibited significant toxicity adversely impacting aquatic organisms.
Guideline Reference: Revised approach to toxicity test acceptability criteria using a statistical performance assessment. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, vol. 16, No. 6, pp 1322–1329
  Short-Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms. EPA/600/4-91/002. Third Edition. July 1994
 
Spatial Representation: Data were collected at one sampling location, AMO070, located above Vulcan Bridge Zone 7, representing the Arroyo Mocho Creek.
Temporal Representation: SWAMP samples were collected during wet (January), spring (April), and dry (June) seasons of 2005.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information: All samples were collected and analyzed using procedures comparable with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (SWRCB, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
 
DECISION ID
17458
 
Pollutant: pH
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: New Decision
Revision Status Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Weight of Evidence: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One line of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Four of the samples exceed the water quality objective.

Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3.Four of the twelve samples exceeded the water quality objectives (Basin Plan)and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, Water Board staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
 
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
 
USEPA Decision:
 
 
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 17458
 
LOE ID: 28967
 
Pollutant: pH
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 12
Number of Exceedances: 4
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Comprehensive water quality assessment was conducted at Arroyo Mocho Creek watershed as part of SWAMP assessment in 2004 and 2005. Continuous field monitoring of temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and specific conductance to determine temporal variability in basic water quality at one or two locations. The pH ranged from 7.0 to 9.2 and varied with season. The pH exceeded the maximum of 8.5 four times (9.2, 9.1, 8.8, 8.6) in all three (spring, summer, winter) seasons. The pH did not go below the minimum during any sampling event.
Data Reference: Data collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. Years 4 and 5 Assessment
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: The pH shall not be depressed below 6.5 nor raised above 8.5. This encompasses the pH range usually found in waters within the basin. Controllable water quality factors shall not cause changes greater than 0.5 units in normal ambient pH levels.
Objective/Criterion Reference: San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan)
 
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
 
Spatial Representation: pH was measured at two sites in summer 2004 and at five sites in spring 2004 and winter 2005 located within the Arroyo Mocho watershed that are representative of the entire watershed.
Temporal Representation: At all locations the SWAMP performed continuous monitoring of pH at 15 minute intervals lasting 7-13 days during spring (April 2004), summer dry season (August 2004), and winter wet season (February 2005).
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information: All samples were collected and analyzed using procedures comparable with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (SWRCB 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
 
DECISION ID
7571
 
Pollutant: Temperature, water
Final Listing Decision: List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: New Decision
Revision Status Revised
Sources: Channelization | Habitat Modification | Removal of Riparian Vegetation
Expected TMDL Completion Date: 2021
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Weight of Evidence: This pollutant is being considered for listing under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. A sufficient number of samples exceed the water quality objective.

Based on the readily available data for this water body, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification available in favor of adding this water segment-pollutant combination to the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:

1. The data concerning current conditions and supporting the listing decision were collected as part of the SWAMP and satisfy the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.

2. The data used satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.

3. Temperature measurements at 6 out of 12 continuous deployments exceeded the 17 °C evaluation guideline for steelhead used to interpret the water quality objective for waters designated as cold water habitat and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.

4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, Water Board staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be added to the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.
 
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
 
USEPA Decision:
 
 
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 7571
 
LOE ID: 4789
 
Pollutant: Temperature, water
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Cold Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: Wildlife Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 12
Number of Exceedances: 6
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Comprehensive water quality assessment was conducted at the Arroyo Mocho watershed as part of SWAMP assessment. Continuous field monitoring at 15 minute increments of temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH and specific conductance was conducted to determine temporal variability in basic water quality at five locations throughout the watershed.

The measured temperatures ranged from 6.1°C to 27.72 °C and varied with season and location. The 17 °C criterion for steelhead was exceeded in 6 out of 12 deployments.

High water temperatures exceeding 24 °C, that is a maximum short exposure temperature for survival of salmonids (EPA 1977) were also measured at three monitoring locations at lower and upper reaches of the Creek during spring and summer seasons. At the monitoring site in the lower reach of the Arroyo Mocho Creek high temperature persisted for up to 5.75 hours during spring while at the middle and upper reach it lasted from 5 to more than 9 hours.
Data Reference: Water Quality Monitoring and Bioassessment in Nine San Francisco Bay Region Watersheds: Walker Creek, Lagunitas Creek, San Leandro Creek, Wildcat Creek/San Pablo Creek, Suisun Creek, Arroyo Las Positas, Pescadero Creek/Butano Creek, San Gregorio Creek, and Stevens Creek/Permanente Creek. Oakland, CA: Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: Temperature objectives for enclosed bays and estuaries are specified in the "Water Quality Control Plan for Control of Temperature in the Coastal and Interstate Waters and Enclosed Bays of California" including any revisions to the plan. In addition, the following temperature objectives apply to surface waters: The natural receiving water temperature of intrastate waters shall not be altered unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Regional Water Board that such alteration in temperature does not adversely affect beneficial uses.
The temperature of any cold or warm freshwater habitat shall not be increased by more than 5°F (2.8°C) above natural receiving water temperature.
Objective/Criterion Reference: San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan)
 
Evaluation Guideline: Sullivan et al. (2000) reviewed a wide range of studies incorporating information from laboratory-based research, field observations, and risk assessment approaches and developed criteria for assessing temperature risk to aquatic life. The 7-day mean temperature (maximum value of the 7-day moving average of the daily mean temperature) of 14.8°C was established as the upper threshold criterion for coho salmon and 17.0°C for steelhead trout. The risk assessment approach used by Sullivan et al. (2000) suggests that temperatures exceeding the above thresholds will cause 10% reduction in average fish growth compared to optimal conditions.
Guideline Reference: An Analysis of the Effects of Temperature on Salmonids of the Pacific Northwest with Implications for Selecting Temperature Criteria
 
Spatial Representation: Temperature was measured at five sites located on the mainstem of Arroyo Mocho Creek. The highest temperatures were recorded at the monitoring location southeast of Livermore in August 2004. High temperatures also occurred in the lower reach of the Creek during the spring season of 2004.
Temporal Representation: In 2004 and 2005 the SWAMP Program performed continuous monitoring of temperature at 15 minute intervals for periods of 1-2 weeks in each of three different seasons: winter (5 sites), spring (5 sites), and summer dry season (2 sites).
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information: All samples were collected and analyzed using procedures comparable with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (SWRCB 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
 
DECISION ID
6203
 
Pollutant: Diazinon
Final Listing Decision: List on 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: List on 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL)(2006)
Revision Status Original
Sources: Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
TMDL Name: San Francisco Bay Urban Creeks Diazinon
TMDL Project Code: 9
Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: 05/16/2007
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Weight of Evidence: 303(d) listing decisions made prior to 2006 were not held in an assessment database. The Regional Boards will update this decision when new data and information become available and are assessed.

The USEPA final decision on the 2006 303(d) list was to move this listing to the being addressed by a USEPA approved TMDL portion of the 303(d) list, because the San Francisco Bay Urban Creeks Diazinon TMDL was approved by USEPA on 5/16/07 (USEPA, 2007).
 
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: No new data were assessed for 2008. The decision has not changed. The water body should remain in the Water Quality Limited Segments Being Addressed category of the section 303(d) list because the TMDL approved by USEPA and the implementation plan are in place.
 
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: N/A
 
USEPA Decision: The USEPA final decision on the 2006 303(d) list was to move this listing to the being addressed by a USEPA approved TMDL portion of the 303(d) list, because the San Francisco Bay Urban Creeks Diazinon TMDL was approved by USEPA on 5/16/07 (USEPA, 2007).
 
 
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 6203
 
LOE ID: 1798
 
Pollutant: Diazinon
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Cold Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 0
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: Not Specified
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Unspecified---This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.
Data Reference: Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion:
Objective/Criterion Reference:
 
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
 
Spatial Representation:
Temporal Representation:
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information: QA Info Missing
QAPP Information Reference(s):